Full Version: Above the law
As noble as our entry into the Liberian conflict may have seemed to the public at large, there is perhaps another reason besides our conflict in Iraq which prevented us from acting sooner.
From Human Rights Watch:
Before our government agreed to assist those already working to aid Liberians we insisted that our peace keepers be granted immunity from prosectution for any possible war crimes or crimes against humanity that may be committed. It is not the first time.
Letter to Powell:
End Bully Tactics Against Court:
Most recently:
Latvia punished in campaign against ICC
For anybody wanting any information on the International Criminal Court you can get an overview HERE.
Some people have claimed that our service men and women need this immunity from international justice because there are nations which would seek to prosecute U.S. soldiers who were innocent of any wrong doing just to take a political pot-shot at America. While there may be some who would like to hurl accusations at our service people, it is highly unlikely that the ICC would ever take up an issue without sufficient support for such accusations. Also, if a U.S. service member is accused of a war crime or crime against humanity overseas, the ICC would not be allowed to exercise jurisdiction so long as the U.S. military launched an honest investigation of the alleged incident.
Disturbing to me is the fact that not all accusations of wrong doing may be fabrications or political propaganda to try and shame the United States. Within the last year U.S. officials have admitted to using tactics that qualify as torture, and at least one U.S. official has intimated that we may even send some military prisoners to countries that do practice torture as a means for evading international criticism.
Should the United States continue seeking immunity for possible war crimes committed by U.S. service members in foreign countries?
Should the United States be pressuring other nations -- especially under developed democratic nations -- to grant U.S. service members immunity by threat of witholding humanitarian financing?
Should it be of any concern that the United States is actively circumventing international law, defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. military code of justice, while admitting to practices which violate international treaties as they relate to human rights?
From Human Rights Watch:
QUOTE
The United Nations Security Council today authorized a peacekeeping force for Liberia, but the U.S. government insisted on including a paragraph in the resolution that provides far-reaching immunity for peacekeepers serving in the country.
...The U.S. action unnecessarily forced Security Council members to choose between the immediate deployment of peacekeepers to Liberia and upholding established principles of law. France, Germany and Mexico abstained in the vote on the resolution in apparent protest over the impunity issue.
...The U.S. action unnecessarily forced Security Council members to choose between the immediate deployment of peacekeepers to Liberia and upholding established principles of law. France, Germany and Mexico abstained in the vote on the resolution in apparent protest over the impunity issue.
Before our government agreed to assist those already working to aid Liberians we insisted that our peace keepers be granted immunity from prosectution for any possible war crimes or crimes against humanity that may be committed. It is not the first time.
Letter to Powell:
End Bully Tactics Against Court:
QUOTE
The American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) revokes military assistance to countries that have ratified the ICC unless they conclude a separate bilateral agreement with the United States by July 1, agreeing never to hand over U.S. personnel to the ICC.
..."U.S. officials are engaged in a worldwide campaign pressing small, vulnerable and often fragile democratic governments," said the Human Rights Watch letter, signed by executive director Kenneth Roth. "Because most ICC member states are democracies with a relatively strong commitment to the rule of law, the threatened aid cutoffs represent a sanction primarily targeting states that abide by democratic values."
The exact number of countries that have signed bilateral immunity agreements is unclear, since some of the agreements are "secret." But at least 38 of them are classified as "less developed" or "least developed" countries by the United Nations Development Program index.
..."U.S. officials are engaged in a worldwide campaign pressing small, vulnerable and often fragile democratic governments," said the Human Rights Watch letter, signed by executive director Kenneth Roth. "Because most ICC member states are democracies with a relatively strong commitment to the rule of law, the threatened aid cutoffs represent a sanction primarily targeting states that abide by democratic values."
The exact number of countries that have signed bilateral immunity agreements is unclear, since some of the agreements are "secret." But at least 38 of them are classified as "less developed" or "least developed" countries by the United Nations Development Program index.
Most recently:
Latvia punished in campaign against ICC
For anybody wanting any information on the International Criminal Court you can get an overview HERE.
Some people have claimed that our service men and women need this immunity from international justice because there are nations which would seek to prosecute U.S. soldiers who were innocent of any wrong doing just to take a political pot-shot at America. While there may be some who would like to hurl accusations at our service people, it is highly unlikely that the ICC would ever take up an issue without sufficient support for such accusations. Also, if a U.S. service member is accused of a war crime or crime against humanity overseas, the ICC would not be allowed to exercise jurisdiction so long as the U.S. military launched an honest investigation of the alleged incident.
Disturbing to me is the fact that not all accusations of wrong doing may be fabrications or political propaganda to try and shame the United States. Within the last year U.S. officials have admitted to using tactics that qualify as torture, and at least one U.S. official has intimated that we may even send some military prisoners to countries that do practice torture as a means for evading international criticism.
Should the United States continue seeking immunity for possible war crimes committed by U.S. service members in foreign countries?
Should the United States be pressuring other nations -- especially under developed democratic nations -- to grant U.S. service members immunity by threat of witholding humanitarian financing?
Should it be of any concern that the United States is actively circumventing international law, defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. military code of justice, while admitting to practices which violate international treaties as they relate to human rights?
From the BBC
"The US put forward the resolution, which extends the immunity of states which have not ratified the ICC's founding statute from its jurisdiction for a second year from 1 July.
It is currently drawing up agreements with individual governments that bar them from surrendering American nationals to the court, and has signed nearly 40 such agreements so far.
Reach of ICC
90 countries have ratified the Rome treaty that established the court
139 countries are signatories to the treaty
The deputy US ambassador to the UN, James Cunningham, welcomed the approval of his resolution but added, "like any compromise, [it] does not address all our concerns".
He rejected the assertion of many speakers in the open debate which had preceded the vote that the US was trying to put itself above the law, declaring "the ICC is not the law" and declaring the court "a fatally flawed institution".
Despite initially signing up to the ICC treaty under Bill Clinton, the US withdrew its signature in 2002, arguing the court could be used to pursue politically motivated prosecutions."
Obviously the United States has withdrawn it's signature and is acting as a sovereign nation. The US has every right to put whatever conditions they like on economic aid to other countries. The only question is if it is in our national interest to protect our soldiers from possible prosecution on political grounds. In this case the diplomatic costs may well exceed the benefits of what seems to me to be an unlikely occurrence.
"The US put forward the resolution, which extends the immunity of states which have not ratified the ICC's founding statute from its jurisdiction for a second year from 1 July.
It is currently drawing up agreements with individual governments that bar them from surrendering American nationals to the court, and has signed nearly 40 such agreements so far.
Reach of ICC
90 countries have ratified the Rome treaty that established the court
139 countries are signatories to the treaty
The deputy US ambassador to the UN, James Cunningham, welcomed the approval of his resolution but added, "like any compromise, [it] does not address all our concerns".
He rejected the assertion of many speakers in the open debate which had preceded the vote that the US was trying to put itself above the law, declaring "the ICC is not the law" and declaring the court "a fatally flawed institution".
Despite initially signing up to the ICC treaty under Bill Clinton, the US withdrew its signature in 2002, arguing the court could be used to pursue politically motivated prosecutions."
Obviously the United States has withdrawn it's signature and is acting as a sovereign nation. The US has every right to put whatever conditions they like on economic aid to other countries. The only question is if it is in our national interest to protect our soldiers from possible prosecution on political grounds. In this case the diplomatic costs may well exceed the benefits of what seems to me to be an unlikely occurrence.
Maybe now you'd care to address the questions actually posed for debate, Hugo. Obviously the United States does have the right to act as a sovereign nation and withdraw its signature from the ICC. The U.S. even has the right to do with her money however she sees fit. My questions were in regards to whether or not the United States should be acting this way.
In regards to persecution on political grounds, it seems implausible on the basis that the ICC would have no jurisdiction so long as the United States undertook an honest investigation of any allegations made against U.S. service member(s).
We have the right to want immunity from prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity. What I'm curious about is should we have immunity against prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity?
We have the right to put conditions on our economic aid to foriegn nations, too. I'm curious about whether we should continue to put conditions which pressure developing democratic nations to do as we wish, namely allowing the possible violation of human rights to occur in their country in exchange for a buck.
And, wrapping things up, I'm still curious as to whether or not we should be concerned that the United States is seeking immunity for such crimes in an international court, all while simultaneously admitting to carrying out some of those very violations we might be held accountable for.
While our government may be claiming a fear of political persecution, it doesn't appear this would be likely to happen. It also appears to be a cover for receiving immunity for those actions we openly carry out against prisoners of the United States military.
In regards to persecution on political grounds, it seems implausible on the basis that the ICC would have no jurisdiction so long as the United States undertook an honest investigation of any allegations made against U.S. service member(s).
We have the right to want immunity from prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity. What I'm curious about is should we have immunity against prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity?
We have the right to put conditions on our economic aid to foriegn nations, too. I'm curious about whether we should continue to put conditions which pressure developing democratic nations to do as we wish, namely allowing the possible violation of human rights to occur in their country in exchange for a buck.
And, wrapping things up, I'm still curious as to whether or not we should be concerned that the United States is seeking immunity for such crimes in an international court, all while simultaneously admitting to carrying out some of those very violations we might be held accountable for.
While our government may be claiming a fear of political persecution, it doesn't appear this would be likely to happen. It also appears to be a cover for receiving immunity for those actions we openly carry out against prisoners of the United States military.
After seeing the debate over Hogg's actions when holding members of an Iraqi generals family, I can see why the improper prosecution of American soldiers could be a concern. It is only international law if every nation is a signatory to it. If we truly believe that the ICC is "a fatally flawed institution" then we should take actions to protect US citizens from such an institution.
The US position can be found here
An excerpt:
"The ICC is not a U.N. institution and, some would even say, challenges and weakens the U.N. Charter system and the Council's place in it. The ICC is vulnerable at each stage of any proceeding to politicization. The Rome Statute provides no adequate check. "Having every confidence" in the ICC's correct behavior, however that is defined, is not in our view a safeguard. We have already seen in other fora the potential for politically motivated criminal charges against national leaders and military officers, including over the recent Iraq hostilities.
Our primary concern, of course, is for American personnel that may find themselves subject to ICC jurisdiction even though the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. As Ambassador Negroponte explained last year, "the power to deprive a citizen of his or her freedom is an awesome thing, which the American people have entrusted to their government under the rules of our democracy.... [T]he International Criminal Court does not operate in the same democratic and constitutional context, and therefore does not have the right to deprive Americans of their freedom." "
I don't remember voting for any member of this ICC, nor is the US a signatory to it. Just what we need another level of government that can imprison us. In this case a government that is not subject to our constitution or democracy.
The US position can be found here
An excerpt:
"The ICC is not a U.N. institution and, some would even say, challenges and weakens the U.N. Charter system and the Council's place in it. The ICC is vulnerable at each stage of any proceeding to politicization. The Rome Statute provides no adequate check. "Having every confidence" in the ICC's correct behavior, however that is defined, is not in our view a safeguard. We have already seen in other fora the potential for politically motivated criminal charges against national leaders and military officers, including over the recent Iraq hostilities.
Our primary concern, of course, is for American personnel that may find themselves subject to ICC jurisdiction even though the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. As Ambassador Negroponte explained last year, "the power to deprive a citizen of his or her freedom is an awesome thing, which the American people have entrusted to their government under the rules of our democracy.... [T]he International Criminal Court does not operate in the same democratic and constitutional context, and therefore does not have the right to deprive Americans of their freedom." "
I don't remember voting for any member of this ICC, nor is the US a signatory to it. Just what we need another level of government that can imprison us. In this case a government that is not subject to our constitution or democracy.
This issue is about the ICC and the US doing what it must to ensure that its military personnel are not subject to the jurisdiction of that body (to which we are not a signatory).
I agree with Hugo about the Hogg issue. If people will assert that THAT issue rises to "war crime" status, then God help us when actual bullets start flying and we have the gall to shoot back at civilians (rebels) or army units (loyalists) in Liberia.
This is just the smart thing to do, especially considering everything that has been happened since before the Iraq war started.
We have every right to insist upon the conditions of our intervention, including this and any other conditions we might feel are necessary.
I agree with Hugo about the Hogg issue. If people will assert that THAT issue rises to "war crime" status, then God help us when actual bullets start flying and we have the gall to shoot back at civilians (rebels) or army units (loyalists) in Liberia.
This is just the smart thing to do, especially considering everything that has been happened since before the Iraq war started.
We have every right to insist upon the conditions of our intervention, including this and any other conditions we might feel are necessary.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Aug 7 2003, 10:41 AM)
1.Should the United States continue seeking immunity for possible war crimes committed by U.S. service members in foreign countries?
2.Should the United States be pressuring other nations -- especially under developed democratic nations -- to grant U.S. service members immunity by threat of witholding humanitarian financing?
3.Should it be of any concern that the United States is actively circumventing international law, defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. military code of justice, while admitting to practices which violate international treaties as they relate to human rights?
1. Yes. There are a number of reasons that the US cannot allow service members to be prosecuted in foreign countries during these types of operations. First, the US has no input into the laws of other countries. In Liberia it may be a crime to spit on the sidewalk. Second, the foreign country may not view US presence as legitimate. In this case, all service members may be considered "war criminals" because they are trespassing (as in Vietnam). Third, in many of the countries we're talking about the government may be unstable. Such a government could be replaced at a moment's notice, and the new government might decide on summary trials and executions for all. Fourth, just because someone is in the military doesn't mean he is no longer a citizen. The US has no input into what is a "fair" trial in another country. Imagine getting an impartial jury in Somalia. Finally, saying the the US wants immunity from war crimes doesn't clearly explain the matter. The US position is that war crimes invetigations will be conducted by the US, and the accused will be given a fair trial in accordance with our constitution.
Going into a place like Liberia is dangerous and stressful at many levels. One assurance we owe the people that do it is that we will protect their rights as citizens.
2. Yes.
3. Possibly.
Hugo's point regarding the Hogg affair should be more than enough to convince any reasonable person that staying away from the ICC is the only sensible thing to do. My God, those who have been railing against Hogg are Americans. One can only imagine the baseless charges that would be brought under such a scheme when it was open to the rest of the world.
There are people in the world who want to see America fail. Why in the name of all we hold dear would any sane, loyal American be willing to give those people the ammunition with which to harm us?
And by the way ABS, we're not seeking 'immunity for possible war crimes'. We are seeking to avoid trumped up charges.
There are people in the world who want to see America fail. Why in the name of all we hold dear would any sane, loyal American be willing to give those people the ammunition with which to harm us?
And by the way ABS, we're not seeking 'immunity for possible war crimes'. We are seeking to avoid trumped up charges.
Holy smokes, there's a lot of sketchy rationalizing going on here.
What ought to be clear is that we do this because we CAN do it. Ultimately. We can only continue to hold such a position as long as we are in a position of strength. If Hitler had decided this, would it have made a difference once he was defeated? Come on, we can make up all kinds of reasons for this, but at the base of it is the idea that might makes right.
Passion:
Any sane, reasoning person would conclude this position is crap. Ideas like this are indicative of total idiocy. Doesn't sound nice, does it, Passion? So STOP DOING IT!! I'm sure it might surprise you to find there are smart, sane, loyal people who DISAGREE WITH YOU. A lot of them perhaps smarter and more sane. Way to lower the debate though.
While we're at it, tell me why I cannot choose to be exempt from California's homicide laws. I don't live there, plus what if they invent a charge and try me? That is unfair, so I should be exempt.
Why should an American citizen traveling in a foreign country be subject to that country's laws, when a soldier deployed to that same country for combat operations is exempt?
Another question:
Is the legal procedure and structure of the ICC so weak that people have a fear of it being abused easily? Wouldn't that warrant helping to create a really well-structured ICC, rather than withdrawing from it altogether? (Clue: I DOUBT IT)
The crux of this issue is the fact that the US is the 800 pound gorilla.
What ought to be clear is that we do this because we CAN do it. Ultimately. We can only continue to hold such a position as long as we are in a position of strength. If Hitler had decided this, would it have made a difference once he was defeated? Come on, we can make up all kinds of reasons for this, but at the base of it is the idea that might makes right.
Passion:
QUOTE
There are people in the world who want to see America fail. Why in the name of all we hold dear would any sane, loyal American be willing to give those people the ammunition with which to harm us?
Any sane, reasoning person would conclude this position is crap. Ideas like this are indicative of total idiocy. Doesn't sound nice, does it, Passion? So STOP DOING IT!! I'm sure it might surprise you to find there are smart, sane, loyal people who DISAGREE WITH YOU. A lot of them perhaps smarter and more sane. Way to lower the debate though.
While we're at it, tell me why I cannot choose to be exempt from California's homicide laws. I don't live there, plus what if they invent a charge and try me? That is unfair, so I should be exempt.
Why should an American citizen traveling in a foreign country be subject to that country's laws, when a soldier deployed to that same country for combat operations is exempt?
Another question:
Is the legal procedure and structure of the ICC so weak that people have a fear of it being abused easily? Wouldn't that warrant helping to create a really well-structured ICC, rather than withdrawing from it altogether? (Clue: I DOUBT IT)
The crux of this issue is the fact that the US is the 800 pound gorilla.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Aug 7 2003, 05:09 PM)
The crux of this issue is the fact that the US is the 800 pound gorilla.
That is true, our investment in our military protects American citizens (yes, even American soldiers) from abuse from other nations and so-called "international" tribunals. I will repeat Americans are subject to our constitution. I will repeat, I voted for no member of the ICC and the U.S. is not a signatory to this treaty.
No American should be subjected to an international court that we are no party to. The 800 lb gorilla is big enough to insure it's citizens are protected under the U.S. Constitution. The original purpose of government is to protect it's citizens from internal and external aggressors.
Well, in the scenario market, what stops leadership in say the armed forces from doing something that most americas would not agree with, such as shelling a city for 48 hours, if you decide to move into being international police, all nations that do so, what laws do any of the armed combatants have to abide by, the geneva convention does not even seem to hold any weight.
During WWII we executed hundreds of our own servicemen for crimes such as murder and rape in the European Theater alone. We manage to take care of our own, and we don't need a bunch of petty politicians from puny countries trying to undermine our efforts through back door methods.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Aug 7 2003, 09:02 PM)
We manage to take care of our own, and we don't need a bunch of petty politicians from puny countries trying to undermine our efforts through back door methods.
Is the front door open, then, or do we reject all criticism or accountability regardless of which door is used? When did equal treatment under shared laws become a danger instead of a strength? If we can say in one context that innocent people have nothing to fear from the law - as is often done with respect to domestic searches and seizures - why can we not say the same in this context?
Local law is not always transferable to international law, or vice versa.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Aug 7 2003, 10:57 PM)
Local law is not always transferable to international law, or vice versa.
True, but why not in this case? The concepts I mentioned are pretty universal and abstract. What is there in the particulars of this context that precludes their application?
QUOTE
Should the United States continue seeking immunity for possible war crimes committed by U.S. service members in foreign countries?
Of course not. Doing so only further frustrates the international community. Telling the rest of the world that we're going to continue letting our military do as it pleases will just create more negative feelings against the U.S. and will only serve to hurt us in the long run. Why should we be afraid of signing on the ICC? If we're so big and bad, then should some "trumped up" charges arise to hurt the U.S. politically, then I think we have more than enough military power to nip that in the bid were it actually legit.
QUOTE
Should the United States be pressuring other nations -- especially under developed democratic nations -- to grant U.S. service members immunity by threat of witholding humanitarian financing?
Absolutely not. That's pretty low. Witholding humanitarian aid only hurts civilians, not the government. Besides, if one of our servicepeople actually does commit inhumane acts against others, then they deserve to be tried and punished.
QUOTE
Should it be of any concern that the United States is actively circumventing international law, defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. military code of justice
Yes, of course it should. But is any country bold enough to try and stop us? Doubtful.
I think with the poeple we have running the country right now, they would certainly turn a blind eye to some war crimes, and yes, I think the Hogg incident should have been prosecuted and how we have a double standard of behavior. Had someone done this to us, we would have collectively freaked out! Imagine , the Iraqis capture Hoggs family, and tell him " as soon as Hogg turns himself in, his family will be freed"- how would we have reacted? War crime prosecution certainly!
Do I want to see our troops used as political footballs? Well, no. I was in the military, and the military was subject to the political whims of the CIA and Reagan back then, and could have been subjected to some war crimes tribunals for our behaviors in central America.
Really a tough question, especially since the ones recieveing the orders are 17 year old kids with thier consience brainwashed by basic training and sleep deprivation. Perhaps we should keep the enlisted immune and subject anyone above the rank of Major to the ICC?
Do I want to see our troops used as political footballs? Well, no. I was in the military, and the military was subject to the political whims of the CIA and Reagan back then, and could have been subjected to some war crimes tribunals for our behaviors in central America.
Really a tough question, especially since the ones recieveing the orders are 17 year old kids with thier consience brainwashed by basic training and sleep deprivation. Perhaps we should keep the enlisted immune and subject anyone above the rank of Major to the ICC?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 7 2003, 11:34 PM)
Really a tough question, especially since the ones recieveing the orders are 17 year old kids with thier consience brainwashed by basic training and sleep deprivation. Perhaps we should keep the enlisted immune and subject anyone above the rank of Major to the ICC?
following orders is NOT a defense for war crimes. if you thought an order was illegal an immoral you are not to follow it.
QUOTE
Should the United States continue seeking immunity for possible war crimes committed by U.S. service members in foreign countries?
no. as has been pointed out, the ICC does NOT have jurisdiction unless the soldiers own country doesn't do anything. if a US soldier is accused of war crimes and the government doesn't do anything, the ICC would then be an option.
QUOTE
Should the United States be pressuring other nations -- especially under developed democratic nations -- to grant U.S. service members immunity by threat of witholding humanitarian financing?
no. we supposedly help people because it needs to be done, not because we'll get something in return. these countries are trying to play by the rules, but we threaten to got their aid off if they don't let us circomvent those rules.
QUOTE
Should it be of any concern that the United States is actively circumventing international law, defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. military code of justice, while admitting to practices which violate international treaties as they relate to human rights?
yes it should be of concern, especially with reports like the CIA using "stress and duress" interrogation techniques, or our soldiers using hostages to get someon to surrender.
I've seen some here argue that people would bring charges against US soldiers for violating local laws(like spitting in the street) but this is a bogus argument. the ICC is not set up and based around local laws but on universally recognized INTERNATIONAL LAW. if someone were to bring charges, I'm sure the ICC would investigate the charge before prosecuting it!
I think that since we refuse to at least sign the ICC treaty, we should get no say in the prosecution progress, and if we only sign it and not ratify it, weshould only have minimal say it that process.
QUOTE(unabomber @ Aug 8 2003, 03:32 AM)
no. as has been pointed out, the ICC does NOT have jurisdiction unless the soldiers own country doesn't do anything. if a US soldier is accused of war crimes and the government doesn't do anything, the ICC would then be an option.
no. we supposedly help people because it needs to be done, not because we'll get something in return. these countries are trying to play by the rules, but we threaten to got their aid off if they don't let us circomvent those rules.
yes it should be of concern, especially with reports like the CIA using "stress and duress" interrogation techniques, or our soldiers using hostages to get someon to surrender.
I've seen some here argue that people would bring charges against US soldiers for violating local laws(like spitting in the street) but this is a bogus argument. the ICC is not set up and based around local laws but on universally recognized INTERNATIONAL LAW. if someone were to bring charges, I'm sure the ICC would investigate the charge before prosecuting it!
I think that since we refuse to at least sign the ICC treaty, we should get no say in the prosecution progress, and if we only sign it and not ratify it, weshould only have minimal say it that process.
QUOTE
Should the United States be pressuring other nations -- especially under developed democratic nations -- to grant U.S. service members immunity by threat of witholding humanitarian financing?
no. we supposedly help people because it needs to be done, not because we'll get something in return. these countries are trying to play by the rules, but we threaten to got their aid off if they don't let us circomvent those rules.
QUOTE
Should it be of any concern that the United States is actively circumventing international law, defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. military code of justice, while admitting to practices which violate international treaties as they relate to human rights?
yes it should be of concern, especially with reports like the CIA using "stress and duress" interrogation techniques, or our soldiers using hostages to get someon to surrender.
I've seen some here argue that people would bring charges against US soldiers for violating local laws(like spitting in the street) but this is a bogus argument. the ICC is not set up and based around local laws but on universally recognized INTERNATIONAL LAW. if someone were to bring charges, I'm sure the ICC would investigate the charge before prosecuting it!
I think that since we refuse to at least sign the ICC treaty, we should get no say in the prosecution progress, and if we only sign it and not ratify it, weshould only have minimal say it that process.
Is anyone saying that people shouldn't be accountable for war crimes? I don't think so. The issue is who will investigate and prosecute. Consider this: Anywhere the US military goes it is supported by teams of lawyers who specialize in international law. Lawyers are consulted about everything the military does to make sure the US is not breaking laws. I think it's fair to say that a lot of countries don't take this approach, even some ICC members. For example, North Korea is in the ICC. I don't believe I'd care to have North Korea investigate or prosecute anything. Their actions over the last 50+ years have demonstrated that they are not terribly concerned with international law.
Who is it that is trying so hard to play by the rules (yet unable because we corrupt them)? The reason we send people to these countries is often because they are almost in anarchy, and usually very corrupt.
QUOTE(Quarkhead@yesterday @ sometime)
While we're at it, tell me why I cannot choose to be exempt from California's homicide laws. I don't live there, plus what if they invent a charge and try me? That is unfair, so I should be exempt.
Why should an American citizen traveling in a foreign country be subject to that country's laws, when a soldier deployed to that same country for combat operations is exempt?
Why should an American citizen traveling in a foreign country be subject to that country's laws, when a soldier deployed to that same country for combat operations is exempt?
I think the comparison is not entirely accurate. We are not talking about a weekend in the south of France. These guys are being put into some of the most dangerous places in the world in conditions near anarchy. Yet even in chaos our troops still must obey laws. As a citizen I expect that war crimes are investigated and prosecuted fully. We have many cases where the US has prosecuted its own in this regard. I'm sure there are cases where the guilty went free, but the law is the law, and its not perfect in the military as its not perfect in civilian life (O.J. is still on the prowl, speaking of choosing an exemption to California's homicide laws).
Really the question is do we trust ourselves or the international community.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 8 2003, 12:41 PM)
Really the question is do we trust ourselves or the international community.
Are those mutually exclusive? It seems to me that the issue here is really that we are unwilling to trust anybody but ourselves to any degree whatsoever. Are we as a nation that insecure? Are we like the manager who cannot delegate properly, who becomes overloaded trying to do everything herself because she can't accept that it might be OK for someone else to do them a little differently? In the business world that's a sure route to failure, and nobody has provided a compelling reason why such behavior should be any more successful in any other context.
As an American I prefer to be protected under our Constitution. What rights does the accused have under the ICC? Miranda rights? 4th and 5th amendment protections? Amazing how the same individuals who deride the Patriot Act for its attacks on the Constitution are OK with Americans being tried without any constitutional guarantees whatsoever.
And of course this "international" court would never be utilized for political purposes. What about this from www.newmediaexplorer.com
Pharmaceutical corporations and individual executives have been accused of genocide and crimes of war before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The charges, which also involve accusations of war crimes against US President George W. Bush, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top political figures, are contained in a detailed complaint filed with the ICC by Dr. Mathias Rath.
Pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Amgen and Astra Zeneca are accused of deliberately preventing life-saving natural alternatives to drug based treatments from being applied in prevention and cure. A worldwide disinformation campaign undertaken by these companies is said to have caused the death of millions of people. Their role in getting both Bush and Blair into power and in determining the policies of their respective administrations with respect to the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is cited as evidence for a case made for violation of Human Rights.
Financial interests behind misdirected health policies world wide and behind the drive for war are also named in the complaint, filed by Rath and others during a two-day Conference in The Hague on 14 and 15 June.
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD
Complaint Against Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity
Committed in Connection With The Pharmaceutical 'Business With Disease'
This complaint is submitted to the
International Criminal Court by Matthias Rath MD
and others on behalf of the people of the world
The Hague, June 14, 2003
To the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court,
Senator Louis Moreno-Ocampo,
c/o International Court, Maanweg 174
NL-2516 AB Den Haag/The Hague
No, of course this new "international" court will not be subject to politics. I prefer to take my chances with the AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM, as flawed as it may be.
And of course this "international" court would never be utilized for political purposes. What about this from www.newmediaexplorer.com
Pharmaceutical corporations and individual executives have been accused of genocide and crimes of war before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The charges, which also involve accusations of war crimes against US President George W. Bush, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top political figures, are contained in a detailed complaint filed with the ICC by Dr. Mathias Rath.
Pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Amgen and Astra Zeneca are accused of deliberately preventing life-saving natural alternatives to drug based treatments from being applied in prevention and cure. A worldwide disinformation campaign undertaken by these companies is said to have caused the death of millions of people. Their role in getting both Bush and Blair into power and in determining the policies of their respective administrations with respect to the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is cited as evidence for a case made for violation of Human Rights.
Financial interests behind misdirected health policies world wide and behind the drive for war are also named in the complaint, filed by Rath and others during a two-day Conference in The Hague on 14 and 15 June.
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD
Complaint Against Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity
Committed in Connection With The Pharmaceutical 'Business With Disease'
This complaint is submitted to the
International Criminal Court by Matthias Rath MD
and others on behalf of the people of the world
The Hague, June 14, 2003
To the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court,
Senator Louis Moreno-Ocampo,
c/o International Court, Maanweg 174
NL-2516 AB Den Haag/The Hague
No, of course this new "international" court will not be subject to politics. I prefer to take my chances with the AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM, as flawed as it may be.
Read that whole article and you will find how much credibility the ICC has (if it takes this case).
Pharmaceutical corporations accused of Genocide before ICC in The Hague
These companies have been trying since Nazi Germany to kill people.
The war in Iraq is all about getting prescription drugs to those Iraqis!!
This case boils down to the fact that drugs treat symptoms, not causes. Maybe affirmative action is a war crime, too.
Pharmaceutical corporations accused of Genocide before ICC in The Hague
QUOTE
IG Farben was the largest shareholder in Rockefeller's Standard Oil and vice versa. The victory of the Allied Forces over Nazi-Germany at that time terminated the plans of IG Farben to become the leading pharmaceutical and petrochemical conglomerate in the world. At the same time, Standard Oil and the other pharmaceutical/petrochemical corporations of the Rockefeller consortium became the controlling financial group of this industry and remained so ever since.
In the Nuremberg War Tribunal of 1947 against the managers of the IG Farben Cartel several of them were found guilty and convicted for committing crimes against humanity including mass murder, plundering and other crimes. The Nuremberg War Tribunal also dismantled the IG Farben Cartel into the daughter companies Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. Today, each of these companies is larger than the parent company IG Farben was at that time.
In the Nuremberg War Tribunal of 1947 against the managers of the IG Farben Cartel several of them were found guilty and convicted for committing crimes against humanity including mass murder, plundering and other crimes. The Nuremberg War Tribunal also dismantled the IG Farben Cartel into the daughter companies Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. Today, each of these companies is larger than the parent company IG Farben was at that time.
These companies have been trying since Nazi Germany to kill people.
QUOTE
Background of the Current International Crisis and the War of Aggression Against Iraq
Four main factors are currently threatening the survival of the pharmaceutical industry and thereby the very basis of a long-term investment industry worth hundreds of trillions of dollars:
1. Unsolvable legal conflicts, resulting in an avalanche of class action lawsuits against many pharmaceutical corporations for product liability
2. Unsolvable scientific conflicts due to the breakthroughs in natural, non-patentable therapies that effectively and largely eradicate diseases as a market place.
3. Unsolvable ethical conflicts, resulting in the loss of credibility for the entire pharmaceutical business due to the fact that their exorbitant patent fees limit access to medicines for the majority of people and risk premature death for millions.
4. Unsolvable corporate conflicts. The unmasking of the pharmaceutical business model as an organized fraud.
For decades, the Pharma-Cartel has made every effort to protect its global business with patented drugs and to ban the dissemination of competing non-patentable health alternatives. This effort is conducted at the international level, by infiltration of the European Parliament and the abuse of the World Health Organization and other United Nations Organizations.
Now, with the largest investment industry on planet Earth being exposed as an organized fraud business - haunted by tens of thousands of liability lawsuits - immediate and global industry protection laws have become an urgent measure to cover up these crimes and to cement the continued control of the investment "business with disease" over human health worldwide.
These far-reaching protection laws for an organized fraud-business implied the curtailing of civil rights and other drastic measures that could not be implemented during peacetime. The implementation of these measures required the escalation of an international crisis, a series of military conflicts that deliberately factors in the use of weapons of mass destruction and the triggering of a World War. Only then would there exist a global psychological situation that would allow abandonment of civil rights, passing of martial laws and the global implementation of protection laws allowing the accused to continue their 'business with disease' and other crimes.
In this situation, the pharmaceutical industry became the single largest corporate donor to the election of George Bush in order to exert direct influence over the most powerful political and military center in the world. With the election of George Bush, the Rockefeller investment group had direct access to the White House, the Pentagon and the political decisions taken there. A similar influence was exerted by the Rothschild group on the government of Tony Blair in Great Britain.
Four main factors are currently threatening the survival of the pharmaceutical industry and thereby the very basis of a long-term investment industry worth hundreds of trillions of dollars:
1. Unsolvable legal conflicts, resulting in an avalanche of class action lawsuits against many pharmaceutical corporations for product liability
2. Unsolvable scientific conflicts due to the breakthroughs in natural, non-patentable therapies that effectively and largely eradicate diseases as a market place.
3. Unsolvable ethical conflicts, resulting in the loss of credibility for the entire pharmaceutical business due to the fact that their exorbitant patent fees limit access to medicines for the majority of people and risk premature death for millions.
4. Unsolvable corporate conflicts. The unmasking of the pharmaceutical business model as an organized fraud.
For decades, the Pharma-Cartel has made every effort to protect its global business with patented drugs and to ban the dissemination of competing non-patentable health alternatives. This effort is conducted at the international level, by infiltration of the European Parliament and the abuse of the World Health Organization and other United Nations Organizations.
Now, with the largest investment industry on planet Earth being exposed as an organized fraud business - haunted by tens of thousands of liability lawsuits - immediate and global industry protection laws have become an urgent measure to cover up these crimes and to cement the continued control of the investment "business with disease" over human health worldwide.
These far-reaching protection laws for an organized fraud-business implied the curtailing of civil rights and other drastic measures that could not be implemented during peacetime. The implementation of these measures required the escalation of an international crisis, a series of military conflicts that deliberately factors in the use of weapons of mass destruction and the triggering of a World War. Only then would there exist a global psychological situation that would allow abandonment of civil rights, passing of martial laws and the global implementation of protection laws allowing the accused to continue their 'business with disease' and other crimes.
In this situation, the pharmaceutical industry became the single largest corporate donor to the election of George Bush in order to exert direct influence over the most powerful political and military center in the world. With the election of George Bush, the Rockefeller investment group had direct access to the White House, the Pentagon and the political decisions taken there. A similar influence was exerted by the Rothschild group on the government of Tony Blair in Great Britain.
The war in Iraq is all about getting prescription drugs to those Iraqis!!
This case boils down to the fact that drugs treat symptoms, not causes. Maybe affirmative action is a war crime, too.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 8 2003, 09:41 AM)
I think the comparison is not entirely accurate. We are not talking about a weekend in the south of France. These guys are being put into some of the most dangerous places in the world in conditions near anarchy. Yet even in chaos our troops still must obey laws. As a citizen I expect that war crimes are investigated and prosecuted fully. We have many cases where the US has prosecuted its own in this regard. I'm sure there are cases where the guilty went free, but the law is the law, and its not perfect in the military as its not perfect in civilian life (O.J. is still on the prowl, speaking of choosing an exemption to California's homicide laws).
Really the question is do we trust ourselves or the international community.
Really the question is do we trust ourselves or the international community.
I understand your point. However, I was trying to make a comparison which would illustrate that choosing this type of exemption is based ultimately on strength. If I were powerful enough, or in this country rich enough, I would have such an exemption, generally speaking.
This whole question can be easily broadened to apply to the general subjection to the law by anyone. There are differences in the treatment of those with power, and those without. These differences have been drawn at various times across racial lines, and religious lines, but always along economic lines.
Examples of this, of course, abound in our society. Even in our government - think about the treatment given Col. North, John Poindexter, Richard Nixon. All guilty. None served time in jail.
When we bombed Cambodia, and made war on South Asia, we killed (ultimately) about a million people. Did anyone in the American military get tried for directing the bombings of civilians in those countries? Nope. Because those bombings were "sanctioned." I would firmly support the idea of an international Criminal Court to bring those murderers to justice. It seems that didn't happen nationally.
If the power-holders in one country sanction an atrocity, it stands to reason they will not prosecute their own people for participating. This has certainly been borne out in history.
Why would there be any War Crimes Tribunals at all? The Nazis certainly weren't breaking the law according to Hitler, right? So who were the Allies to do it? WE WERE THE VICTORS. And ultimately, that's the only reason we had the ability to try the Nazis for war crimes.
By ignoring the ICC and many other trappings of the fundamental ideas behind such entities as the United Nations, we are turning back the clock. We are demonstrating our loyalty to the ideals of Machiavelli (the ends of power and state justify any means) and Plato (who in the Crito has Socrates accepting his fate, because ultimately, it is more necessary to obey the law than it is to be just). I'm afraid I agree with neither of those principles.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.